Remember Roman Empire? You may soon have to remember the American Empire.

Donald Trump did something positive today. He proved to everyone with a brain that he is not governing for “we the people,” He is governing for the Trump financial empire. It is so obvious that one would have to have their head in the sand not to see it. He almost shouts it every time he opens his mouth and he proves it with his every action.

Please tell me what actions he has taken since taking his throne that will benefit the American people who are not named Trump or who don’t belong in the same class of wealth that he portrays for us to believe that he possesses.

Everyone he has appointed has been dedicated to enacting and enforcing laws and rules that are beneficial to the rich and powerful and detrimental to the working-class of society. Every action he has proposed or taken is likewise. And he has no intention of hiding it or denying it.

Trump tells us that he is not involved with Russia – no business deals, no loans, nothing. Then both of his sons openly admit that most of their money now comes from Russia. Gee, they must be confused. I’m sure that their benevolent father wouldn’t lie or mislead anyone. Of course, there are those who have been involved in his circles for many years who tell us that he is a con man. And he has now proved to us that the thing he is the best at is being a con man. He conned Russia in to helping him get elected and now he is using his life long practice of denying everything, even if the truth is sitting there in plain sight.

He goes to meet with “Rocket Man,” not because he wants to cool things off but because he wants to clear the way for business deals for the Trump empire.

It’s the same thing with Russia. He meets with perhaps our worst enemy, a guy who when you shake hands with him you count your fingers afterward. And then he trots him out like a kid introducing his new friend to his astonished parents.

Why a closed-door meeting? Not because he thought we might hear naughty words. The reason is the same one we all have when we whisper to someone. We don’t want anyone to hear the conversation. He has loans with Russia and probably wants those loans to be forgiven since he probably can’t pay them. That would be the best deal Putin could get if he could pay those loans for him and get his cooperation while he rapes the rest of Eastern Europe.

And then he has the audacity to stand next to this murdering tyrant and tell us what a great guy he is to do business with.

And this is after he made a complete fool of himself with the NATO members and thoroughly insulted the Queen of England among several other world leaders.

The guy is out of control. He is trying to fortify his financial empire at the expense of our future generations and he has no qualms about it.

In Defense of the Great One

When will we ungrateful slobs acknowledge brilliance and benevolence – especially when it is so obvious?

Why should we be surprised with Trump’s we-we-we attitude about the U.S. trade policies, (although some of us losers believe it exemplifies his idiocy and complete lack of any understanding of how our economy or the world economy works)?

And we accuse him of making rash decisions about tariff policies, among many other policies, which he believes fortifies our dominance in the world economy but which actually backfires and does just the opposite to U.S. companies and ultimately to each of us as we participate each and every day of our lives in our somewhat tenuous economy.

His actions are merely an expansion and expression of his innate narcissism, his me-me-me attitude, which we greatly admire, and which is so apparent that there are suggestions to change the term from Narcissism, which was named after Narcissus, who fell in love with his image reflecting from the water, to Trumpism, which actually gives a perfect modern day example of and whole new meaning to Narcissism.

Trump believes, and perhaps rightly so, not only that is he the greatest person ever created, but that his greatness should expand to the U.S. since our greatness can be attributed in large part to his enormous success as a leading pinnacle of the business world and that he is generously expanding his greatness to the country which he has so benevolently agreed to make great again.

And our jealousy brings us to accuse him of being all about “me-me-me.” After all, his willingness to share his greatness is certainly benevolent and just the opposite of narcissistic. Unless, of course, that we should believe that his making America great again slogan is intended to make his financial well-being great again, which would be a very unkind belief when we consider the fact that he devotes a great deal of time that he could be playing golf at one of his tremendous resorts, that display his vast and envied success as a business tycoon, while willingly sharing his tremendous governmental brilliance with us just to share the wealth and success with the rest of us poor slobs.

And then we have the audacity to question his obvious billionaire status just because he refuses to let us see his tax returns and examine his records of financial well-being when that is merely a show of modesty on his part and a desire to not make every one of us feel a failure in society when compared to his tremendous, wonderful, and the best there ever was or ever will be, success in the history of mankind.

And then, to pour more fuel on the fire of disrespect, we conduct an extensive investigation of Russian meddling in his election and continue to pursue it even though we have only discovered a dozen or so of his associates who had conversations or involvement with the Russians who are alleged to have committed such fraudulent interference.

It seems high time to acknowledge his contribution to our future greatness which will certainly be attributable to his unselfish willingness to share the wealth and greatness with those of us who lack the brilliance (and, of course, the family inheritance and willingness to bilk banks and investors) as we live our lives as ungrateful losing chumps.

It is apparent that we don’t all think alike about how or how much we should be governed. But, like one of our revered writers of the 18th Century is quoted as having said: “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

In attempting to understand our differences of opinion, I have a few questions:

What is it about Trump that induced you to vote for him?

And, what is it about him that induces you to continue to believe in him and his policies?

Is it his coziness with Kim Jon Un in North Korea, a dictator who comes from a long line of vicious despots who have proven their untrustworthiness?

Is it his coziness with Vladimir Putin in Russia, a dictator who orders the murder of his own people when he considers them a threat to his dominance?

Is it his criticism of Congress when they fail to act for his benefit and to support his reach for dictatorial power?

Is it his bilking of the government of every conceivable means of personal financial gain in the use of his office, a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution?

Is it his criticism of our judges and judicial system when they follow the law and act to his disfavor?

Is it his rudeness in mocking people with disabilities, people who are suffering from poverty, and people who recognize his narcissistic egotism and lack of common sense and grammatical deficiencies?

Is it his appointment to the Supreme Court of a right-wing judge like Scalia who has already shown his dismay for the workers of this country and sides with the rich and powerful individuals and corporations, like three of four others who hold that position?

Is it his treatment of immigrants who sometimes travel on foot for days to seek immigration to the United States as shelter from extreme poverty or death threats from criminals in their home country?

Is it his willingness to ignore the welfare and fragility of small children by separating them from their parents and imprisoning them for, what he calls, illegal immigration?

Is it his deranged decision to upset tariff policies with our major trading partners, creating a trade war and creating havoc for many of our manufacturers in this country with the ultimate financial impact on all of us?

And do you continue to believe in him regardless of his apparent criminal activity in seeking help from Russia in being elected, which is evidenced by numerous individuals who have already been indicted and criminally charged?

What is it that you Right-Wingers like about your political identification?

Is it the belief that we should have smaller government? If so, which part of it do you wish to eliminate?

Is it the laws of credit and commerce, which the behemoth corporations find restrictive in their incessant drive for more and greater profits? Those laws which control usury to some extent and provide protection from abusive financial activities which are considered fraudulent or oppressive?

Is it the labor laws, which provided the working class with the right of collective bargaining which is now being all but eliminated by adverse decisions by the Supreme Court regarding unionization?

Is it abortion, which has been an ongoing argument for decades and which, if the right is banned, will lead to illegal abortions with devastating results for women?

Is it male dominance that drives you, the annoyance of women becoming a more equal part of our governance and our business world?

Is it welfare, that process of democracy whereby we take care of others who are less fortunate, that process which some of you refer to as taking my hard-earned money and giving it to someone else who refuses to work and earn their own welfare?

Is it your quest for less government spending that is becoming a laughing matter since the president and Congress enabled a tax-cut that will create an enormous debt increase for the government, that is, you and I?

Is it your struggle to continue calling yourselves the party of fiscal responsibility while generating less revenue, a larger budget, a larger deficit, and much larger federal debt?

Is it any of these? Is it all of these? What is it?

As a matter of further things to consider, Voltaire is also quoted as having said:

The discussion of human habitation has suddenly become refocused on immigration now that we who consider ourselves as owners of this land have all safely immigrated here and established our space to pursue a comfortable livelihood. Many of us “own” a portion of this country, a portion of this planet. At least that is what we think because we bought it from someone.

If we want to take this belief back to basics we should consider the right of the owner that we bought it from to sell it to us. And we should take that sequence of owners all the way back to such time as the American Indians were the only inhabitants here and the English, French, and Spanish decided that this vast continent was up for grabs and they grabbed portions of it. Did they buy it from anyone? Doubtful, since no one then thought they owned it and had any right to sell it. No, they just staked their claims, as did many of the early foreign immigrants and many of those who ventured West as the immigrants migrated away from each other.

Of course, similar “ownership” of continents and land transpired worldwide throughout the history of mankind.

So, who really owns the land? Who has the right to decide who gets to live anywhere? The answer is whoever has successfully claimed the territory and whoever has been able to protect their so-called rights of ownership.

Theoretically, everyone on the planet should possess the same right of ownership and everyone on the planet should have the right to live anywhere they want. There should be no such term as immigration. Migration is well-defined as people moving about in seeking of a better life or simply a desire to leave where they live and live elsewhere. Immigration entails legal status and the avoidance of such status has coined the term “illegal immigration”, that term that has Trump all in a tither.

If the above over-simplification of history makes any sense it should mean that perhaps anyone who wants to live anywhere should have the right to live anywhere they wish, without requesting permission to ‘immigrate.” Even if you are a small child!

Digitizing our minds, our thoughts, our lives

Ted Folkert

June 8, 2018

This subject reminds me of the old song line “every time we say goodbye I die a little,” simply because every time we think we understand digitization, some mind-boggling technology seems to appear out of nowhere and our old beliefs die a little, again and again and again.

Those of us who are old enough to remember when we used adding-machines and calculators to do computations can’t help but be overwhelmed by computer technology, which seems to advance at breakneck speed, in gigantic leaps instead of at one bit of data at a time. We who consider ourselves adept at utilizing computer technology to our advantage keep getting mesmerized as we seem to watch the old computer fly over our heads and out of the ballpark just when we think we have a grasp on automation and digitization.

When I graduated from college, computers were not even available. We used adding-machines, and calculators, and hand-written calculations to solve mathematical equations. Now a problem which would take minutes or hours to resolve, can be done in a second by entering simple data into a computer.

That was the old rate of speed for our computers. The world’s fastest computer now, they tell us, can compute 200 quadrillion calculations in one second, a task which would require 63 billion years for one person to calculate.

This machine built by IBM and Nvidia can do calculations in one second that would require 2 million laptops to complete. It has more than 9,000 processing chips, more than 27,000 graphics processors, and almost 200 miles of cables. The cost was a mere $200 million.

It is beyond the conception of most of us to imagine the commercial or scholastic value of such computational capacity, but it certainly speaks volumes in conceiving the unlimited technological advances and the opportunities for resolving some of humanities most pressing obstacles of survival.

And before we get all giddy about this potential expansion of life, I guess the next question may be whether Planet Earth, which now has more than 7 billion inhabitants, can support the number that may be required if the current rate of progression is multiplied by this amazing technology. We went from 1 billion to 7 billion in a couple of hundred years without this super computer. At that rate we will have more than 70 billion 200 years from now. It is unimaginable what the growth may become with the ability to solve life’s equations at the rate of 200 quadrillion calculations per second.

We may need many more wars to keep the population at a level that the planet will support.

Think about it!

(Computer and computational statistics came from Steve Lohr, New York Times, June 8, 2018)

Memorial Day – 2018

Memorial Day is a good day to question the causes and results of warfare, especially when we acknowledge the sacrifices of those who have served and particularly of those who paid the ultimate price.

What causes war? History tells us that many wars resulted from racism, ethnicity, religion, anti-Semitism, and tyrannical plunders. But, is war caused by a quest for power, a quest for territory, a quest for financial dominance, a conflict between domineering egos? Is it just a response to abusive actions of powerless grassroots activists? Is it actions of would-be tyrants or dictators seeking expansion of dictatorial power on the backs of powerless subjects and enormous wealth amassed on the backs of the poor? Or is it triggered by sabre rattling gone bad, challenging a leader’s image or political survival and forcing a demonstration of superiority?

And beyond the physical conflicts are those which seem to be festering due to sabre rattling of narcissistic dictators and narcissistic presidents, without common sense and compassion for the welfare of their people and the rights of others to protect the welfare of their people. Personality conflicts and misguided political beliefs creating precarious risks of catastrophic results for the safety and welfare of innocent people – an inexplicable display of power without provocation which simply necessitates additional expansion of war materials and weapons which consumes more of the planets finite resources and wastes financial resources that could provide beneficial necessities for the populous in terms of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education, and living conditions.

One might wonder if humans are any more civilized overall than wild animals. Wild animals seem to kill each other for food, fear, territory, and sex. Are humans overall much different? Which causes of wild animal killings do humans avoid? Good questions.

It must be less stressful to initiate warfare if you can send other people’s children there to do the fighting and experience devastating injury or loss of life.

Stokely Carmichael has been quoted as having said years ago when discussing the military draft: “It is like white people sending black people to make war on yellow people to protect land stolen from red people,” – an interesting analogy that may have more reality than we care to acknowledge.

Faceless Wanderers

Ted Folkert

May 15, 2018

We see more of them every day. They must not have faces because we don’t seem to see their faces. Often, we don’t even see them. We just see their encampments, their tents, their shopping carts full of their life’s possessions. We see their blankets, their bags of clothing, their thin mats to separate them from the concrete. And we see piles and piles of trash left behind as they traverse from one sleeping place after another.

We see the police officers talking to them about finding another place to live. We see social workers talking to them about assistance programs and healthcare offerings. We see a clump on the sidewalk or the alley or the bridge underpass or overpass, which is the body of a sleeping faceless person, a person that we wish would get away from our neighborhood and sleep somewhere else.

Think about this for a moment. I say a moment because that is all the time we wish to expend on this uncomfortable subject matter. Think about having all your worldly possessions in one bag and carrying it around with you day in and day out everywhere you choose to go or are forced to go. Think about being asked or forced to leave everywhere you find that you think just might be a place where you can live for a while. Think about having your bag of worldly possessions thrown in the trash every time you leave it unattended. Think about trying to find a place to use the toilet or clean up each day. Think about trying to figure what and where you might find something to eat and drink each day.

Think about finding a way out of your hopeless situation. How do you do that? “Get a job” say those who have no compassion for the helpless and hopeless, no understanding of what caused their homelessness or what kind of help they need to climb out of the undesirable, deplorable, inescapable, and intolerable situation. How can you get a job when you have no place to clean up, no clean clothes to wear, and no way to hide your unhealthy and undesirable appearance? How do you get a job when you have no transportation and no mailing address and no telephone number? How you get a job when you have no references and no recent employment history?

The authorities tell us there are 40,000 or so. I suppose the actual number doesn’t matter, especially when we are asking you to imagine being just one of them. But the fact that the number just keeps growing means two things. It means the problems causing no place to sleep and no place to live are getting worse and it means that we aren’t doing anything to solve the problems.

Those of whom we entrust to managing our lives in the city, county, state, and nation can’t seem to find any way to deal with all this. Of course, it is no small problem with one easy solution. But I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that people with no place to live need a roof over their head. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that people who have nothing to eat or drink need someone to turn to for nourishment. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that everyone needs personal hygiene and healthcare.

It seems like everyday we see them breaking ground for another high-rise building for housing or for offices for our enormously successful corporations. Not many of us could design or build such structures, However, they seem to get built and at a cost, expertise, and difficulty thousands of times greater than it would require in figuring out how to house and feed those among us who need some help.

It seems that simply saying that we have our priorities in the wrong order would be so much of an understatement of the ridiculousness of this situation that it would be laughable. Unfortunately, this situation in not laughable. It is shameful, inconsiderate, and incomprehensible.

We purport to be a society, a community, a city, state, nation – but we find the challenge of taking care of those in need to be insurmountable. But then we find building a one-hundred story building or a gigantic football stadium for 100,000 fans to be a piece of cake.

Now, that is deplorable, disgusting, and inhumane to say the least. I am looking for volunteers amongst our fearless leaders to go live on the street for a day or so. Maybe they should all be required to go live on the street until they find a solution to this horrendous problem. That should get some immediate results. Quicker than you could say, helpless, homeless, and horrendous.

Better Safe than Sorry

Ted Folkert

April 19, 2018

While you have that cellphone up to your ear, put it down for a while so you can consider some critical information about the possibility of each conversation on that device shortening your life. Not shortening your life due to receiving bad news, or wasted energy, or wasted time, or physical responses you may receive for insulting whomever you may be talking with.

No, shortening your life due to possible cancer-causing radiation from the cell phone antenna, which is widely believed to be a threat by many scientists, some of whom that told the wireless industry executives in the 1990s that such radiation may cause brain tumors.

After charges that a lethal brain tumor had been caused by cell phone use, a study was conducted by epidemiologist George Carlo, selected by Thomas Wheeler, leader of the cellular industry. According to Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie of The Nation magazine, Carlo notified the industry leaders that “the risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than double in cell phone users – and an apparent correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head and the ability of the radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage was definitely positive.”

Of course, Wheeler publicly denounced Carlo’s findings in the press immediately and denied that there could be any such correlation. He proceeded to refute such accusations aggressively with public denouncements disparaging the credibility of George Carlo.

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie relate this denial of Carlo’s findings to similar denials in two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the dangers of smoking and climate change. Tobacco executives were told that smoking was deadly and fossil fuel executives were told that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a catastrophic temperature rise. Then, during a Congressional hearing, as most of us will recall, all the tobacco executives stood with right hands raised, indicating sworn testimony, that smoking does not cause cancer – and one can imagine that not a one of them believed that to which they were swearing. They all took one for the team – save the career and the profits at all costs – integrity be damned, human health and human lives be damned.

In all three of the above cases the leaders of the respective industries went to great lengths to deny and disprove the allegations, opting to protect their lucrative industries for their own benefit and that of their stockholders at the expense of the general welfare and safety of the populous.

Although the research continues, cell phones have not been proven to emit radiation which causes tumors or cancer. Much of the research points that way but none has been confirmed precisely. Now that “5g” technology is becoming available the likelihood may be even greater.

Regardless of the lack of definitive proof, it seems wise to keep the phone away from your head – use the speaker phone, Bluetooth, or text message capabilities – better to be safe than sorry.

Abuse of Power on Steroids

Ted Folkert

April 16, 2018

The future health of the American economy and the welfare of the proletariat – the working-class – the hoi polloi – of our society is under attack by our narcissistic president, who is totally absorbed in his own fame and fortune and is now using his undeserved presidential power to milk the U. S. Treasury and to disembowel the financial foundation of the economy for the benefit of himself and others rich and powerful who have no need or use for more wealth.

His every interest and every action are innate with ties to his personal benefit, a benefit that he perceives can only be accomplished by demolishing and rendering useless the U.S. government.

Our founders and governmental leaders since our founding have spent almost 250 years creating one of, perhaps, the strongest of economic systems ever established. The system has been altered, modified, amended, regulated, deregulated, honed, and tempered throughout this 250 years, but has become stronger and more functional for most of us over time.

Ronald Reagan tried to gut it during his abysmal eight years in office and started the ball rolling toward aristocracy and oligarchy, which, if we want to offer any excuse for his ignorance, was probably due to his brain washing as the radio spokesman for General Electric during the years prior to his presidency.

Now, after we the American people, realizing our lack of attention to our well-being, started electing leaders with more egalitarian views and more educated economic backgrounds and understandings, the economy, although not where it needs to be regarding egalitarianism, better serves most of us and has provided economic growth and improved living conditions for several decades now.

And along comes Trump, the guy who gives narcissism a whole new meaning, the guy who doesn’t read, listen, or care about the general welfare of the people who aren’t named Trump, the guy who is only interested in his personal aggrandizement and gratification, who is taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of our government so that it will better serve himself.

As if his lack of education, understanding, concern, or interest in the American governmental system and economy isn’t bad enough, here is who he selected to head up the departments which are fundamental to professional management and productive administration of their missions:

For Secretary of Education he gives us a lady, a billionaire, a promoter of private education who considered public schools as “dead end.”

For Secretary of State he gives us a guy who had negotiated billions of dollars deals with Russia.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, he gives us a climate-change denier.

For the Department of Energy, he gives us a guy who campaigned to abolish the department.

For Housing and Urban Development, he gives us a neurosurgeon who considers poverty a “state of mind.”

All the above choices, mostly billionaires, lean heavily against taxes, health care, the environment, public education, and civil rights. Birds of a feather flock together, as my mother would have said.

It seems safe to say that any historian, governmental authority, or economist with exemplary credentials would consider the above cabinet a potential governmental wrecking crew.

Tom Steyer, a noted California billionaire, has been funding a campaign for impeachment of Trump and has gained thousands of signatures in support of his campaign. His efforts, although they may only be a fruitless exercise. are commendable in that he has the courage and passion to attempt to change destructive leadership, not only with his money but with his considerable effort. It is hard to not join in his effort even though it may not culminate in impeachment, as it would certainly send a much-needed message to his excellency, Trump.

It seems that an effort more achievable and more meaningful could well be an all-hands-on-deck effort to change the majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by our votes in the November elections this year. Democratic control in both houses would render Trump much weaker in legislative endeavors and perhaps enable legislation to reverse some of the damage he has done which can be passed without presidential signature by appropriate levels of congressional approval. Such a position would make his final two years at the helm of this ship-lost-at-sea to stay afloat with limited damage until we can return our government to adult supervision in 2020.

The Inept Finger on the Trigger

Ted Folkert

April 11, 2018

“Déjà vu, all over again,” as someone once said, is a danger that we should now fear, not only as a nation, but particularly as parents or grandparents of draft-age kids.

Inferences have been made by historians and other political commentators of military actions having been initiated as a tactic of distraction from public displeasure against leaders with the power to declare such actions and personal reasons for such diversionary tactics.

Such inferences were discussed after the 911 disaster when George W. Bush, after initiating military action against Afghanistan, suddenly diverted the military against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, purportedly because Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Some of us assumed that such action was in retaliation and vengeance for the attempt to assassinate his father, George H.W. Bush, when he was president. And some of us thought such action was a tactic of distraction to divert attention away from GWB’s incompetence in office, which was becoming more apparent daily and was dominating the news cycle at the time.

Now we have a president which gives the term incompetence a whole new meaning, who has made a laughing stock of the office, who has been abusive to political appointees time after time by hiring them and firing them, with little regard for their careers and no identifiable reasoning other than the demand of sycophantic delivery of his message, which is: “I am great, brilliant, know all things, and nothing else matters except the embellishment of my image.”

Unfortunately, he has his finger on the trigger which could generate massive turmoil worldwide, losses of trillions of dollars, losses of millions of lives, unlimited damage to our environment, and massive waste of the Earth’s precious resources – and perhaps merely to divert attention away form his miserable incompetence, dishonesty, and disregard for anyone other than himself.

Congress should step up and do the right thing. They should enact legislation, even if it requires a constitutional amendment, to eliminate presidential power to initiate any type of military action without congressional approval. The thought of one person having the authority to do so is without common sense, not only to eliminate personal reasons from the equation, but to require discussion and debate of such measures at length and the ultimate consensual decision which considers all ramifications involved, instead of merely the momentary whims of one elected official.

This should be a nonpartisan action. Who, in their right mind, could disagree. Those who have seen warfare would surely support such a measure. (Where is Dwight Eisenhower when we need him)

Having one person in a position to create warfare and endanger the lives and welfare of everyone in the nation is very scary. It seems unnecessary, unwarranted, and inane. It is times like this when the urgency of such action becomes imperative and demands non-partisanship, mutual beneficence, and common sense – for the COMMON GOOD.